Talk:WikiJournal Preprints/Leprosy

WikiJournal Preprints
Open access • Publication charge free • Public peer review

Submit

Authors

Reviewers

Editors

About

Journals

Journals

WikiJournal of Medicine

WikiJournal of Science

WikiJournal of Humanities

WikiJournal of PPB

WikiJournal Preprints

More resources

More resources

Articles in review

---

Editorial guidelines
Ethics statement
Bylaws
Indexing
Financials and reports
1-year/3-year plan
Proposed platform
Meeting minutes
Calendar

---

Contact

WikiJournal User Group is a publishing group of open-access, free-to-publish, Wikipedia-integrated academic journals. <seo title=" Wikiversity Journal User Group, WikiJournal Free to publish, Open access, Open-access, Non-profit, online journal, Public peer review "/>

<meta name='citation_doi' value=>

First submitted: 30 Apr 2020
Declined: 28 Nov 2020
Article text

---

QID: Q100400591

---

Suggested (provisional) preprint citation format:
Jennifer Dawson; Mary Olivia Hutton; Mayra May; James Heilman; Robert Dellavalle; et al.. "Leprosy". WikiJournal Preprints. Wikidata Q100400591. 

License: This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction, provided the original author and source are credited.

Editors:

Roger Watson contact
Gwinyai Masukume

Reviewers: (comments)

Francisco Mayron Morais Soares

---

Article information

Authors: Jennifer Dawson  , Mary Olivia Hutton, Mayra May, James Heilman  , Robert Dellavalle  

See author information ▼

This article has been declined for publication by the WikiJournal of Medicine.

It is archived here as a record. Discussion can be viewed below.

Plagiarism check

The WMF's plagiarism check tool points out that 'violation is likely' with 79.7% confidence. Please see the results here. Some of this is clearly websites that have picked up your Wikipedia page and then copied it - not sure what we can do about that. But I think that some of the information does predate your Wikipedia page.Can I ask you to check this and see it anything needs to be adjusted. Thanks Rwatson1955 (discuss • contribs) 16:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Rwatson1955:, yes I would be happy to check through these. I really appreciate you helping here and catching these early in the process.

• I see that this source has a 90% chance of a violation via your above link. I am not familiar with this website. Do you think that this is copied off Wiki or vice-versa? this
• I have checked the second highest confidence match (9%) and see that the repeated use of "M. leprae and M. lepromatosis has" is coming up as a violation. I am assuming that this can be left. I have also changed "Norwegian physician Gerhard Armauer Hansen" to Gerhard Armauer, a physician from Norway" as this sentence was also flagged

Thank you again!JenOttawa (discuss • contribs) 16:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @JenOttawa: thanks for responding; I strongly suspect that the Wikipedia page has been copied given the respective dates of the two pages and I think, given the CCL under which Wikipedia is published, this is probably OK but I stand to be corrected if any Wikipedians pick this up. The main thing is that we've noted it here for transparency. I continue to pursue reviewers - six invited to date. Thanks again Rwatson1955 (discuss • contribs) 10:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Based on the Who Wrote That tool, the overlapping phrases from that indahnesia site were already on the wiki page in 2004 and 2007 by:

• Seglea added this on 14 February 2004 12:49
• WHO Leprosy added this on 21 March 2007 00:14

So I think it's case of the other site copying from the early wp article. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 09:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look @Evolution and evolvability:.JenOttawa (discuss • contribs) 02:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Peer review 1

Review by Francisco Mayron Morais Soares , Faculdade UNINTA Itapipoca | Professor of Infectious Diseases at Faculdade UNINTA Itapipoca. Extensive experience with Neglected Diseases with Emphasis in Leprosy.
These assessment comments were submitted on 14 Jul 2020, and refer to this previous version of the article

1. It is necessary to mention that in addition to leprosy being a highly infectious disease, it has low pathogenicity, that is, not everyone who was infected developed the disease.
2. It is important to note that leprosy is still an exclusive disease and permeated by prejudice, in this context, one of the main contributions to the improvement of the patient is family participation and acceptance.
3. It is already proven that the transmission of the disease is through the respiratory tract, therefore, I suggest that the authors describe in a simpler way that in the past it was considered as transmission through the skin, but today the literature confirms its transmission through the respiratory tract.
4. It is important to be exposed even though the predominant diagnosis is the clinical one, but tests are always necessary to complement such diagnosis.
5. Regarding prevention, it needs to be informed that people who live closely with people with leprosy should take a dose of the BCG vaccine if they only have the usual infant dose. This improves immunity and reduces the risk of pathogenesis.
6. in addition, I missed the public policy plans and the technologies used today for people with leprosy.

• Finally, a thematic of utmost importance and that adds a lot to the world prism.

Thank you for the excellent suggestions to improve the Wikipedia article. We look forward to considering these in order to improve what is presently shared on Wikipedia and also hope to continue with this publication in the WikiJournal of Medicine. I will address each comment below by number.

1. Thank you for pointing out that the pathogenicity of the disease needs to be highlighted. I have adjusted to lead to read: "Leprosy has a low pathogenicity, and an estimated 95% of people who contract M. leprae do not develop the disease.". See revision: https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=WikiJournal_Preprints%2FLeprosy&type=revision&diff=2259690&oldid=2259687

2. Thank you for pointing out the importance of overcoming stigma as an important contribution to improving the health of people with Leprosy. I have found a systematic review to support this, PMID 32742673, that shares the results of studies looking at social stigma and the family. Regarding an intervention to improve outcomes, I could not find a high-quality secondary source. I did find some new primary research studies including: PMID 30997168 and PMID 30951526. If we can find a secondary source, these may be helpful. In the meantime, I did find a systematic review on interventions to prevent stigma. I did not include interventions in my recent edit, however, in the background section of this review the role of reducing stigma for improving outcomes in people with diseases including leprosy is discussed. A few primary studies on counseling are including in the stigma review. In summary, in response to this very helpful suggestion, I have added a new section to the article called "Outcomes"(as per Wikipedia's Medical Manual of Style (MED:MOS). The outcomes section shares the following:

Outcomes

Leprosy is curable, however, when left untreated leprosy can cause permanent physical impairments and damage to a person's nerves, skin, eyes, and limbs.[84] Despite leprosy not being very infectious and having a low pathogenicity, there is still significant stigma and prejudice associated with the disease.[85] Due to this stigma, leprosy can effect a person's participation in social activities and may also effect the lives of their family and friends.85 People with leprosy are also at a higher risk for problems with their mental well being.[85] The social stigma may contribute to problems obtaining employment, financial difficulties, and social isolation.[85] Efforts to reduce discrimination and improve the stigma surrounding leprosy may help improve outcomes for people with leprosy.86

3. I have adjusted the sentence on transmission to more clearly share the evidence related to transmission: "Transmission is through the upper respiratory tract" link to edit.

4. Thank you for this suggestion. The diagnosis section presently reads: In countries where people are frequently infected, a person is considered to have leprosy if they one of the following two signs: Skin lesion consistent with leprosy and with definite sensory loss. Positive skin smears." The WHO resource that was summarized to share this information reads "In an endemic country or area, an individual should be regarded as having leprosy if he or she shows ONE of the following cardinal signs" I feel that this is sufficient. I do not see any information in the sources that specifies "suspected exposure" beyond the country or area where the person lives. Do you agree that we can leave as is based on the WHO source? Thank you again for taking such a careful look at the article and for pointing out so many areas for improvement.

5. The reviewer has suggested that we improve the Prevention section to include information for people who live close to someone with leprosy and the BCG vaccine. In response to this, I looked in the literature and added the following sentence to the article: "People living in the same home as a person with leprosy are suggested to take a BCG booster which may improve their immunity by 56%." I have also included two new review articles to support this. Link to my edit.

6. Thank you for the suggestion to include public policy plans and technologies for people living with leprosy. In response to your suggestion, I have added a new section to the article entitled "Public policy" and included information summarized from the "Global Leprosy Strategy 2016–2020: Accelerating towards a leprosy-free world". Link to my edit to the pre-print. Regarding technological advances, I performed a literature search and found numerous primary sources sharing the efficacy of technological advances such as apps, to improve compliance and allow patients to monitor their disease and seek early interventions in order to prevent disabilities. I could not find any secondary sources summarizing this information. Since this is a Wikipedia article, it was written following Wikipedia's Guideline for Reliable Sources in Medicine. I have not added a new section on technology for the time being, however, I have flagged this on the talk page of the present leprosy Wikipedia article in order to work with the existing community of editors to fill this gap with high quality secondary sources.

Thank you again for this thorough and helpful review of the article. We welcome feedback at anytime. Note: I have included my aforementioned improvements in both this submission on wikiversity and in the current English Wikipedia article. I will follow further suggestions from the community on english Wikipedia and may be back to make some further tweaks to continue to improve this article. JenOttawa (discuss • contribs) 04:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Editorial decision

Comments by Roger Watson ,
These editorial comments were submitted on 30 Nov 2020, and refer to this previous version of the article

One review has been submitted for several months to which the authors have not responded; also, it has proved impossible, despite many efforts, to make direct contact with the lead author or any of the co-authors. Rwatson1955 (discuss • contribs) 11:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)